I'm ok with either way, but I'd be inclined to go with "play it". I think this is much ado about an infrequent occurance.

Sure, there are a handful of lets every set, but if you were to chart them, I bet as many lets land out as they do in. And if playing lets removes the possibility of questionable calls, that makes me lean towards "play it". Again, how many lets are we talking about in an average set?

Plus, playing a let instead of retrieving the errant ball and giving another serve speeds things up a bit too. I'm all for that.

Why in the world would the big world of tennis want to emulate what's going on in the dead end of college tennis? Outside of Isner, if a player wants to go to the big show, they aren't going to college. At 15 an up and comer, better be giving top ten players a run for their money, like Ranoic or Tomic. Serena and Venus didn't go to colletch until mid career to mani-pedi and fashion school for a hobby. If you're playing college tennis, you're shooting for a career as a stock-broker or ad-man, a free membership at an old-line club to get a tin sign playing elite social tennis with the hot lonely housewives.

But if the USTA's goal is to make the game go faster to hasten the journey to the club watering hole, where the real action is, I guess it would do that in an infinitesimal way. Why play the match at all, just spin a racket to decide the match and loser buys the first round, let the real games begin. Leave the frickin' game alone for those of us who want to play it--yellow balls were a good idea because they allowed for playing later into the sunset.

Division I implemented this because even serves that had cleared by a foot were being called lets. Your solution just exacerbates the problem of cheating.

Click to expand...

And it's only Division I mens tennis that plays the let serve. The ladies still play the standard rule. I've watched lots of NCAA tennis and am still a bit freaked out when the players play a let serve. Usually works out to the advantage of the receiver but I'd sure hate to see a big match tiebreaker determined by a serve dribbling over the net for an ace.

But I would be in favor. Yes, it introduces a bit more luck into things, but it would go both ways - server might get a lucky ace that hits the net cord and dribbles over, but would also get more faults on serves that hit the tape and take a large hop out.

Click to expand...

Can't see how that would produce more faults, that's already a fault.

Still, I'd be mildly in favor of this perhaps imaginary proposed rule change. The "dribble over" serves would be annoying, but there are at least as many or more "whack the tape and bounce up high and become a sitter" lets.

A few people have said they've never experienced many "phantom" let calls. I have. Might be more common with older players (not talking about myself, you understand.) They hear something around the time the serve is crossing the net, maybe their jaw popping or a small blood vessel bursting in their head, and they call a let when the serve seemed to have plenty of clearance.

I'm not attempting to solve the problem of cheating, but merely trying to speed up the game.

Click to expand...

Playing lets speeds up the game. World team tennis uses it just fine. Amusing to see lets played... and even a returner's partner can play it in doubles. It's really not a big deal but it requires *change*

Still, I'd be mildly in favor of this perhaps imaginary proposed rule change. The "dribble over" serves would be annoying, but there are at least as many or more "whack the tape and bounce up high and become a sitter" lets.

A few people have said they've never experienced many "phantom" let calls. I have. Might be more common with older players (not talking about myself, you understand.) They hear something around the time the serve is crossing the net, maybe their jaw popping or a small blood vessel bursting in their head, and they call a let when the serve seemed to have plenty of clearance.

Click to expand...

I have a weird story involving a let from a 40 and over tournament this year.

I was playing the #1 seed in the semi-finals. He had a very nice game and was beating me pretty handily, and I was just happy to have made it that far. 60 minutes into the match, I was down 0-6, 1-5, and he was serving at 40-15 (double match point). He hit a big first serve that clipped the top of the net very hard and popped up about 6 to 8 feet in the air and landed softly in the middle of the service box for a let. Just the exact opposite of the "phantom let" that you mentioned. Therefore, I just bunted the ball back to him so he could re-serve, but he proceeded to smash it into the court. At that point, he stood there at the net to shake hands, and I told him that his serve was "obviously a let, take a first serve." At that point, he went absolutely ballistic - cussing, stamping his foot, and calling me a cheater!

I couldn't believe it, especially since I had never met this guy before, there hadn't been any animosity in the match up to that point, and I was resigned to getting my butt kicked. He told me that the serve was "way over the net", and not close to a let, but I stood my ground. It's like he had a temporary aneuryism and blacked out at the part where his serve smashed into the netcord, popping almost straight up... completely weird. To top it off, when he finally went back to re-serve, he proceeded to double fault the next 4 points. I held serve and broke again to make it 4-5, before he finally calmed down and broke me at love to win the match.

In the end, he apologized and I asked him why he gotten so worked up over the let, especially when he was winning so easily. He said that he still thought the serve had cleared the net, and he was tired of getting cheated all the time by players in tournaments. I told him that he certainly missed the let call, and wished him luck in the finals... but walked away thinking "what a psycho!"

As an epilogue, a couple months later, I happened to be looking through the USTA site and came upon a list of players that were banned from USTA sanctioned tournaments for sportsmanship grievances. Sure enough, this guy was on the list with a 6 month suspension, which started after the tournament we played in. I can only assume that he must have done something else crazy in the match before mine, or possibly in the final, since I never filed anything. Maybe he had a case of temporary insanity that weekend? Kind of scary to think it starts at 40... :shock: